Juror B29 was framed… sort of

posted at 10:01 am on July 27, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Allahpundit took a first look at the big Juror B29 Breaking News on Thursday, and like many of us, was left scratching his head. The headlines which showed up all across the media all focused on one money line from ABC’s big interview with “Maddy” because it was just so gosh darned irresistible. “George Zimmerman Got Away With Murder.”

Another person who jumped on that headline, albeit from a different angle, was Dr. James Joyner. That’s not surprising given the number of others who reported the “news” pretty much as presented by ABC. But now he’s had time to look over the situation and found that there was a lot more (or perhaps less) to the truncated interview clips than met the eye. Joyner points us to William Saletan, who takes a look at the unedited interview and determines, “The media are reporting that a juror says Zimmerman is guilty of murder. That’s not true.“

The reports are based on an ABC News interview with Juror B29, the sole nonwhite juror. She has identified herself only by her first name, Maddy. She’s been framed as the woman who was bullied out of voting to convict Zimmerman. But that’s not true. She stands by the verdict. She yielded to the evidence and the law, not to bullying. She thinks Zimmerman was morally culpable but not legally guilty. And she wants us to distinguish between this trial and larger questions of race and justice.

ABC News hasn’t posted a full unedited video or transcript of the interview. The video that has been broadcast—on World News Tonight, Nightline, and Good Morning America—has been cut and spliced in different ways, often so artfully that the transitions appear continuous. So beware what you’re seeing. But the video that’s available already shows, on closer inspection, that Maddy has been manipulated and misrepresented.

From Joyner:

The bottom line is that ABC News exploited “the only minority of the Zimmerman jury,” attempted to take advantage of someone not accustomed to being on television or otherwise expressing herself publicly, and then selectively edited the tape when they were unsuccessful in getting the story they wanted. Other outlets, including “the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and dozens of other newspapers” were duped along with me.

This is truly shameful conduct on the part of a news division once home to giants like John Cameron Swayze, Frank Reynolds, Harry Reasoner, David Brinkley, and Peter Jennings.

Saletan makes a number of pretty much unassailable points on this, so read that entire piece. One of the chief ones is that the top, link baiting quote from the interview – that Zimmerman “got away with murder” – was, as the author puts it, “put in her mouth.” If you saw the highlights from the interview playing endlessly on ABC, CNN and NBC – to name only a few – you saw Maddy reciting that line as if it was her heartfelt conclusion in a moment of juror’s remorse. But when you watch the full interview, (which I’ll include below for your own judgement) you’ll see what really happened. The “journalist” in question fed her that line word for word, prefaced with the ubiquitous, “some people are saying…” for good measure, and then asking B29 to respond. She pauses for quite a while, starts, stops, and then repeats the line the interviewer had said, as if judging how it sat on her tongue. Only then does she add in her own thoughts about how the verdict was legal and that she stands by it, but morally she feels that Zimmerman may have to answer to God for the incident. And even there she clearly seems to allow that none of us know what really happened and aren’t in a position to judge.

I agree with Dr. Joyner that this was some pretty shameful editing on the part of ABC for the many instances where they used the footage, and the rest of the networks are equally culpable for lapping it up. Anyway, as I indicated above, here’s the full clip. Decide for yourself.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

I have to admit that I always enjoy the “why did they have to kill him instead of just shooting the gun out of his hand” types of post.

Given the distance from cement Martin’s body was found, Zimmerman would have had to have dragged him to the grass, or Martin would have to stagger quite a bit with a bullet in his chest.

DarkKnight3565 on July 27, 2013 at 3:04 PM

We also know that though Zimmerman said Martin was on top of him, bashing his head on cement when he was shot and just fell off, Martin’s body was found 20 feet away from the cement.

DarkKnight3565 on July 27, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Ask a hunter the fartherest they’ve had to track a deer after an ethical shot. I’ve personally seen a .30-06 Ballistic Silvertip do significant damage to the heart at only 75 yards out and the deer still managed 40+ yards after the shot, and who knows what ammo Zimmerman had to find that would reliably feed through that Kel-Tec.

Wait, sorry. I forget. Hold on a second…

Okay, try this one:

I’ve seen a deer run a long way even after getting shot completely through the heart with a lubricated hunting bullet that was painted black and shot out of a black gun made of plastic. Oh, and the bullet would slip right through most bulletproof vests that aren’t plated. And did I mention the bullet was black?

Let me know if I need to rephrase it again to get the point across about how nasty a bullet that is. Everyone else: Winchester Ballistic Silvertip, .30-06, 180 grain.

That 140lb deer was hit almost perfectly with the most accurate and nastiest round I could find at the time (the exit wound was the size of a tennis ball and completely destroyed the opposite shoulder), and it still ran 40 yards after losing half its heart.

So you say I should be alarmed that Trayvon was a few feet away from the immediate area of the fight

AND I should overlook the established field of forensic science for your faith-based “shot him as he retreated” position

That 140lb deer was hit almost perfectly with the most accurate and nastiest round I could find at the time (the exit wound was the size of a tennis ball and completely destroyed the opposite shoulder), and it still ran 40 yards after losing half its heart.

rogerb on July 27, 2013 at 9:45 PMrogerb on July 27, 2013 at 9:45 PM

The defense’s forensic’s expert, the world renowned one who has written books most detectives use as textbooks and for reference, testified that even when someone is shot directly in the heart they could still walk around and talk for 15-20 seconds, and possibly longer.

To which Bernie de la Rionda, Amateur DA Extraordinaire, Pet of Angela Corey, the Wicked Witch of the Florida’s Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, and victorious in 78 out of 79 prosecutions for murder — where his opponents were public defenders paid the state’s minimum wage for such work, or thereabouts — replied, basically and in all seriousness, in his best Johnny Caron voice, “Really, I did not know that”.

Leading Mark Geragos to say, for about the hundredth time, “I think the prosecution is deliberately trying to lose this case”.

And yet people still take this trial seriously, as if it was an example for the world to follow in how it conducts its trials.

Welllll … now it makes sense why what Juror B29 seemed to be saying didn’t make sense–editing for falsity. Maybe ABC should be joining NBC in getting sued for editing malpractice. But what I still don’t get is what are people like Roberts getting out of all this lying and manipulating cuz when they die–and they will die like the rest of us peons–this is the crappy low-life legacy they’ll be leaving.

Martin was 6 ft tall. Imagine him standing up after being shot, turning, taking a step or two and falling forward on his face. He could easily be 10 or 15 ft away without even trying.

gracie on July 27, 2013 at 11:45 PM

Sure. He could have even fallen down 20 ft away.

The assertion that Martin was found 20 ft away from the concrete and that this is solid evidence Zimmerman is most likely guilty of Murder Two fails in every way.

First, Martin was not found 20 ft away from the concrete.

Second, even if he was found dead 20 ft away from the concrete he could have moved that far, or further, after he was shot. Even if he had been straddling Zimmerman with both knees on the concrete when he was shot.

Third, according to Zimmerman’s testimony Martin was not straddling him with either knee on the concrete. And there was no physical evidence of this on the knees of the pants Martin was wearing. Zimmerman said his head was on the concrete, that at one point his head was hitting the edge of the concrete. And that he was trying to wriggle down to get his head off of the concrete. There is no evidence Martin was on the concrete when he was shot.

Where Martin’s body was found was not inconsistent with the possible locations it could be found given all of the evidence and all of the testimony. Even if it was found 20 ft away it would not be inconsistent with all of the evidence and all of the testimony.

I agree with you. And once I heard the Dean of Forensic Pathology Dr. Vincent DiMaio’s testimony I knew how the Martin’s assault of Zimmerman went, that it was clearly a case of self defense and that that’s how the jury would have to come down.

As for the ‘holstered in his back,’ Zimmerman is on film saying just that. The film wasn’t played on Hannity or Greta to my knowledge, so I am not surprised that few people on hot air seemed to have seen it.

DarkKnight3565 on July 27, 2013 at 3:04 PM

“In fact, there was no film – which is why I didn’t add a link to it – but I thought I’d toss it out there to see if anyone would believe me. (Dammit. Nobody believes me.)” – - Dark Night

As for the ‘holstered in his back,’ Zimmerman is on film saying just that. The film wasn’t played on Hannity or Greta to my knowledge, so I am not surprised that few people on hot air seemed to have seen it.

DarkKnight3565 on July 27, 2013 at 3:04 PM

“In fact, there was no film – which is why I didn’t add a link to it – but I thought I’d toss it out there to see if anyone would believe me. (Dammit. Nobody believes me.)” – – Dark Night

Solaratov on July 28, 2013 at 10:22 AM

No such “film” was presented as evidence in the trial, either. A trial in which the prosecution entered into evidence every “film” it could find of Zimmerman making statements about what happened, including an interview on Hannity. Because a large part of their “case”, such as it was, was to show how Zimmerman did not say exactly the same thing about every little detail in every videotaped statement/interview. And thus he must be lying about everything.

The prosecution did try to imply, because of where Zimmerman casually reached during the walk through, that his holster was not exactly on his right side at the 3 o’clock position. “Maybe” it “might have been” more at the 4 o’clock position. Which some morons have extrapolated to mean the holster “might” have been at the 6 o’clock position, or something. And that means Zimmerman must be guilty of 2nd degree murder.

At the same time the prosecution tried to tell us that “maybe” Martin was in the act of getting up off from on top of Zimmerman when he was shot.

So on the one hand the prosecution tries to imply that Zimmerman “might not” have been able to get his gun out of the holster while on his back “if” the holster was located more towards his back, and on the other hand the prosecution implies that even if he did manage to get his gun out with Martin on top of him me “might” have shot Martin as he was “maybe” getting off of him after beating the crap out of him. Oh, and the prosecution tries to imply that “maybe” Martin did not hit Zimmerman at all while he was on top of him. That “maybe” Zimmerman got those injuries some other way. Oh, and BTW, the prosecution tried to imply that “maybe” Martin was never on top of Zimmerman at all, contrary to the physical evidence and the testimony of the only actual “eye” witness of the altercation, John Good.

The defense’s forensics expert, world famous Forensic Pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio, dismissed all of the this “maybe”, “could have”, “might have” speculation as completely implausible given all of the physical evidence and testimony he reviewed.

The prosecution had no comprehensive and coherent theory of the crime. The prosecution had no continuous narrative it could present that explained what happened when and where. It wanted the jury to speculate and dream up their own theories about what happened, personal “theories of the crime” that ignored and dismissed any and all evidence and testimony that contradicted and was inconsistent with their own special fantasy theory. Like the one presented on this thread.

The State wanted the jury to conclude that if one of the prosecution’s hypothetical speculations, or “maybes”, or “might haves”, or “could haves” were true, then “maybe” Zimmerman did not act in self-defense and thus he was guilty of 2nd degree murder beyond all reasonable doubt.

This is unheard of in a court of law, and one of the reasons why the judge should have never let it go to the jury. O’Mara requested that at least the 2nd degree murder charge should be tossed — request denied. That she did let it go to the jury is another bit of evidence that the State was trying to railroad Zimmerman. The judge had to know the prosecution had no case.

Even juror B29 ….

…when Roberts asked “whether the case should have gone to trial,” … answered, “I don’t think so. … I felt like this was a publicity stunt.”